Because here in reality, what corporate raiders do is find companies that are inefficient and that can be broken up and the assets sold. Sold means that someone else is buying, which then strongly suggests that the buyers are able to make better use of those assets. Basically the opposite of waste.

Yeah, maybe i was exaggerating. That process can be a good purge.What i was talking about is more like hostile takeovers where one firm takes over a competitor just to rip it apart.Meanwhile, the efficiency you talk about is not directly related to the quality of the product or service the company delivers. Maximizing profits is more often than not the goal for these gutting operations. That is for the good of the shareholders, not for the good of people in general.

See? This is why I usually just skip over this thread.

Profit is the onlyobjective measure of goodness that the world has.

I find it nearly impossible for you or any rational sane person to believe that.

It's not a matter of belief, it's the limitation of their optics. They operate under presumptions set forth by authorities without question. Limiting ones measure to only profits demonstrates that only tools that measure profits are used and any other data is discarded. This is called observational bias.

Any significantly advanced cryptocurrency is indistinguishable from Ponzi Tulips.

... what corporate raiders do is find companies that are inefficient and that can be broken up and the assets sold. Sold means that someone else is buying, which then strongly suggests that the buyers are able to make better use of those assets. Basically the opposite of waste.

Sometimes. Sometimes they just find companies with a competing product that's blocking them from getting monopoly prices, buy them out, kill the competing product, and start charging monopoly rates.

Remember, "More efficient" is not always globally more efficient. Sometimes it means people pay more money for an inferior product, while simultaneously reducing the amount of that payment devoted to development of better solutions. The only thing "more efficient" in this scenario is the rate at which the pockets of the investors get filled - and that only in the short term, since the industry is deprived of the progress in efficiency that comes with competition.

Much argument about efficiency is really about points of view and timeframes. That which is "more efficient" in producing return on investment in a single company in the next quarter is not usually the same as that which is "more efficient" in producing return on investment in an entire industry (or an entire economy) over the next ten, twenty, etc. years. The social interest in efficiency is in the latter, long-term industry-wide or economy-wide view. The capitalist's interest in efficiency is usually measured in the first view only.

Even within a single company, you get different efficiencies with different points of view depending on how much of their fortune someone has invested. A coalition of Angel investors with 51% of a startup's stock, who have themselves invested only 3% of their own wealth into the startup, would rather pursue a 10% chance of absolutely dominating a market (and making 20X on their investment) than a 60% chance of just making a profitable company (and making 2X on their investment). But the founder who has sunk every dime he's ever earned into this company, who will be absolutely ruined if it fails and doesn't have money to invest in anything else to offset the risk, has a very different view of the world. He's looking at a company that could work just fine, and he knows it, and he is getting wound up and run into a brick wall like a crash test dummy instead, taking insanely high risks of failure. The interests of the Angels and the founder are not in fact aligned, even though both succeed if the company succeeds.

It's not a matter of belief, it's the limitation of their optics. They operate under presumptions set forth by authorities without question. Limiting ones measure to only profits demonstrates that only tools that measure profits are used and any other data is discarded. This is called observational bias.

Do you have an example of an objective measurement of goodness that I (and everyone other human being from the beginning of time until today) missed?

I have no doubt that you can come up with any number of subjective measurements that just by sheer coincidence happen to support your views. Any fool can do that, and plenty have.

17Np17BSrpnHCZ2pgtiMNnhjnsWJ2TMqq8 I routinely ignore posters with paid advertising in their sigs. You should too.

It's not a matter of belief, it's the limitation of their optics. They operate under presumptions set forth by authorities without question. Limiting ones measure to only profits demonstrates that only tools that measure profits are used and any other data is discarded. This is called observational bias.

Do you have an example of an objective measurement of goodness that I (and everyone other human being from the beginning of time until today) missed?

I have no doubt that you can come up with any number of subjective measurements that just by sheer coincidence happen to support your views. Any fool can do that, and plenty have.

When you use words like "goodness" and you define them as subjective, you have already dismissed any objectivity. Measuring phenomena is multidisciplinary. There is no need to rely solely on "subjective measurements." It is easy enough to measure objective qualities of goodness. Qualities such as pleasure, nutrition and health, productivity (in general terms), social connectedness, etc. could partially define goodness. I would not interpret goodness in any moral sense, but in the overall wellness of people that tend to be generalized as good. This way we can independently measure factors that discern perceived goodness from acceptable norms. I'm not talking about a "school of thought," but demonstrable quantities subject to falsification and used for making useful predictions. This is an oversimplified explanation, but that's what science is. A truth can be told easily, but it's explanation is almost never easy when it comes to epistemological terms.

Any significantly advanced cryptocurrency is indistinguishable from Ponzi Tulips.

Ahh yes the vision of the anointed, you believe a third party can make better decisions for people then themselves. You think the market is a ravenous beast? Do you not see the dead bodies in the middle east? 2 world wars in the past century, empires constantly rising and crumbling, inflation robbing the citizens of their wealth, an ever increasing and pervasive government and the US is one of the better governments which is very scary, and the market is the ravenous beast?

Oh, you mean the wars driven by our western markets?The ones driven by lobbys from the military industrial complex?I hope you realize that the 3rd party you speak of could be you, at least that is how it's supposed to work. Companies serve their own selfish needs so we (non corporate entities) need to organize to get some community needs otherwise nothing will happen. Discussing the US gov is pointless they are fully owned by industry. They are not 'one of the best governments', in fact they are pretty sitty it's just that they leave enough of the markets off the leash to hook everyone on their shiny debt economy.

And it's not a question about either/or.It's about the right kind of governance.Too little and companies will F*** everyone in te ass.Too much (or the wrong kind of) control and the government will F*** everyone in the ass.I would say that in countries like the US the situation is special and people get F***ed from both sides.But usually a government seeks a balance between all factors that make up a society.

If you think governments are scary, wait till you learn how multinationals play them like puppets and blame it all on them.And this does not negate the need for proper governance. Governance is what all known civilizations are built on.

Lobbyists only lobby because government has the power to hand out unfair market advantages to lobbyists, if people don't lobby government then one of their competitors will, it is government that always poisons the incentives in the free market, the government is the source for all the problems because it is government that makes the rules.

So if government is too small, private companies can fuck you in the ass right? SO why are lobbyists not lobbying for smaller government? Why is it regulation is growing year on year and smaller businesses are driven out of the market?

This is all just emotional bullshit, I have no idea why you hate business so much, all a business can do is ask you to buy their product, government is the one pointing a gun in your face. From what I can see government is way more popular than multinational companies, very few are protesting big government, most are protesting big business. Governance is how most civilisations die, governments always get too fat and tax their populace to death

Because here in reality, what corporate raiders do is find companies that are inefficient and that can be broken up and the assets sold. Sold means that someone else is buying, which then strongly suggests that the buyers are able to make better use of those assets. Basically the opposite of waste.

Yeah, maybe i was exaggerating. That process can be a good purge.What i was talking about is more like hostile takeovers where one firm takes over a competitor just to rip it apart.Meanwhile, the efficiency you talk about is not directly related to the quality of the product or service the company delivers. Maximizing profits is more often than not the goal for these gutting operations. That is for the good of the shareholders, not for the good of people in general.

See? This is why I usually just skip over this thread.

Profit is the onlyobjective measure of goodness that the world has.

What nonsense.The word 'good' is by itself completely subjective.You cannot have a objective measure of a subjective quality.

Because here in reality, what corporate raiders do is find companies that are inefficient and that can be broken up and the assets sold. Sold means that someone else is buying, which then strongly suggests that the buyers are able to make better use of those assets. Basically the opposite of waste.

Yeah, maybe i was exaggerating. That process can be a good purge.What i was talking about is more like hostile takeovers where one firm takes over a competitor just to rip it apart.Meanwhile, the efficiency you talk about is not directly related to the quality of the product or service the company delivers. Maximizing profits is more often than not the goal for these gutting operations. That is for the good of the shareholders, not for the good of people in general.

See? This is why I usually just skip over this thread.

Profit is the onlyobjective measure of goodness that the world has.

What nonsense.The word 'good' is by itself completely subjective.You cannot have a objective measure of a subjective quality.

While it is true you cannot have an objective measure of a subjective quality like "goodness", I believe profit is the closest thing we will ever get to measuring it. Profit in a free market signifies wealth created in society as the producer has gained a greater amount of money than their investment and the consumer has been able to improve their wellbeing by gaining a good that enriches their life, in a voluntary exchange it is assumed that both sides believe they are benefiting from the exchange because otherwise they wouldn't exchange in the first place. When you buy a bitcoin for $650 you value the bitcoin more than the $650 and the other guy values the $650 more than the bitcoin.

While it is true you cannot have an objective measure of a subjective quality like "goodness", I believe profit is the closest thing we will ever get to measuring it. Profit in a free market signifies wealth created in society as the producer has gained a greater amount of money than their investment and the consumer has been able to improve their wellbeing by gaining a good that enriches their life, in a voluntary exchange it is assumed that both sides believe they are benefiting from the exchange because otherwise they wouldn't exchange in the first place. When you buy a bitcoin for $650 you value the bitcoin more than the $650 and the other guy values the $650 more than the bitcoin. This is why the free market is the best system because the only exchanges that are deemed legitimate are voluntary ones.

You make a capital mistake here.You assume that because an exchange was made voluntarily it means that the outcome is per se good for the exchangers.What if, in your example, the bitcoin seller knows that the price will drop sharply in a few days?Would that still be considered a 'good' deal by most people? It sure looked that way when the exchange was made.

The fact that most people would seek protection against such deals means that these kinds of deals were not as good as we wanted them to be.

The problem is that we, as humans, cannot have a free market simply because some humans will game that system.That is why we have regulations.And in that respect these regulations are like laws, which is another element in creating a stable society. Humans are just bastards when they are faced with an opportunity to get ahead of other humans. We're pretty egoistical by nature.

While it is true you cannot have an objective measure of a subjective quality like "goodness", I believe profit is the closest thing we will ever get to measuring it. Profit in a free market signifies wealth created in society as the producer has gained a greater amount of money than their investment and the consumer has been able to improve their wellbeing by gaining a good that enriches their life, in a voluntary exchange it is assumed that both sides believe they are benefiting from the exchange because otherwise they wouldn't exchange in the first place. When you buy a bitcoin for $650 you value the bitcoin more than the $650 and the other guy values the $650 more than the bitcoin. This is why the free market is the best system because the only exchanges that are deemed legitimate are voluntary ones.

You make a capital mistake here.You assume that because an exchange was made voluntarily it means that the outcome is per se good for the exchangers.What if, in your example, the bitcoin seller knows that the price will drop sharply in a few days?Would that still be considered a 'good' deal by most people? It sure looked that way when the exchange was made.

The fact that most people would seek protection against such deals means that these kinds of deals were not as good as we wanted them to be.

The problem is that we, as humans, cannot have a free market simply because some humans will game that system.That is why we have regulations.And in that respect these regulations are like laws, which is another element in creating a stable society. Humans are just bastards when they are faced with an opportunity to get ahead of other humans. We're pretty egoistical by nature.

What if the bitcoin seller is wrong? There are no certainties, yes there are problems with asymmetric information but there is nothing that government can do to solve this, politicians game the political system regularly by using asymmetric information e.g. minimum wage law, despite the vast amounts of evidence that shows minimum wage laws create unemployment and raise the cost of living politicians have managed to fool the general populace that the minimum wage law is good and prevents exploitation when in fact it is the politicians that are exploiting the people for votes as they prevent people from getting on the job ladder and make them dependent on government handouts. What do you mean by game the free market system? Give me an example

You make a capital mistake here.You assume that because an exchange was made voluntarily it means that the outcome is per se good for the exchangers.What if, in your example, the bitcoin seller knows that the price will drop sharply in a few days?Would that still be considered a 'good' deal by most people? It sure looked that way when the exchange was made.

If God is playing the market, there isn't much we can do about it. Or are you thinking of some other entity that knows the future?

In reality, someone that thinks that something is overvalued (by taking into account their predictions of the future), they sell, and their very act of selling drives the market down. They are helping the market discover the correct price. If they are right, they are rewarded. If they are wrong, they are punished. Same goes for the buyer. If either of them is wrong, they lose their ability to influence the market in the future.

This is, of course, ignoring fraud, coercion, etc.

You have funny ideas about what prices are, and what markets do. You can probably blame your parents and teachers. It is hard for people to grasp that such important mechanisms in our daily lives just emerge without having been planned.

17Np17BSrpnHCZ2pgtiMNnhjnsWJ2TMqq8 I routinely ignore posters with paid advertising in their sigs. You should too.

It's not a matter of belief, it's the limitation of their optics. They operate under presumptions set forth by authorities without question.

Out of curiosity, how are you linking "profit" and "authority?"

Until there is a multidisciplinary correlation supporting the hypothesis that profit is a measure of goodness, it appears to be a fallacy. Fallacies are the bread of authorities. It is far too easy to falsify and support the opposite view that profit leads to pain, pain leads to suffering, and someone loses a hand.

Any significantly advanced cryptocurrency is indistinguishable from Ponzi Tulips.

It's not a matter of belief, it's the limitation of their optics. They operate under presumptions set forth by authorities without question.

Out of curiosity, how are you linking "profit" and "authority?"

Until there is a multidisciplinary correlation supporting the hypothesis that profit is a measure of goodness, it appears to be a fallacy. Fallacies are the bread of authorities. It is far too easy to falsify and support the opposite view that profit leads to pain, pain leads to suffering, and someone loses a hand.

That's such a wishy washy statement, anything can lead to pain, are you saying that the act of profit making actually inflicts pain? Can you give an example?

It's not a matter of belief, it's the limitation of their optics. They operate under presumptions set forth by authorities without question.

Out of curiosity, how are you linking "profit" and "authority?"

Until there is a multidisciplinary correlation supporting the hypothesis that profit is a measure of goodness, it appears to be a fallacy. Fallacies are the bread of authorities. It is far too easy to falsify and support the opposite view that profit leads to pain, pain leads to suffering, and someone loses a hand.

That's such a wishy washy statement, anything can lead to pain, are you saying that the act of profit making actually inflicts pain? Can you give an example?

Howabout the obvious one. Slavery.

Any significantly advanced cryptocurrency is indistinguishable from Ponzi Tulips.

It's not a matter of belief, it's the limitation of their optics. They operate under presumptions set forth by authorities without question.

Out of curiosity, how are you linking "profit" and "authority?"

Until there is a multidisciplinary correlation supporting the hypothesis that profit is a measure of goodness, it appears to be a fallacy. Fallacies are the bread of authorities. It is far too easy to falsify and support the opposite view that profit leads to pain, pain leads to suffering, and someone loses a hand.

That's such a wishy washy statement, anything can lead to pain, are you saying that the act of profit making actually inflicts pain? Can you give an example?

Howabout the obvious one. Slavery.

We're talking about free markets and voluntary exchanges, slavery is not a voluntary exchange.

It's not a matter of belief, it's the limitation of their optics. They operate under presumptions set forth by authorities without question.

Out of curiosity, how are you linking "profit" and "authority?"

Until there is a multidisciplinary correlation supporting the hypothesis that profit is a measure of goodness, it appears to be a fallacy. Fallacies are the bread of authorities. It is far too easy to falsify and support the opposite view that profit leads to pain, pain leads to suffering, and someone loses a hand.

That's such a wishy washy statement, anything can lead to pain, are you saying that the act of profit making actually inflicts pain? Can you give an example?

Howabout the obvious one. Slavery.

We're talking about free markets and voluntary exchanges, slavery is not a voluntary exchange.

How convenient to define the conversation to your arbitrary parameters. I am sure everyone in the world agrees with your worldview.

Any significantly advanced cryptocurrency is indistinguishable from Ponzi Tulips.

You make a capital mistake here.You assume that because an exchange was made voluntarily it means that the outcome is per se good for the exchangers.What if, in your example, the bitcoin seller knows that the price will drop sharply in a few days?Would that still be considered a 'good' deal by most people? It sure looked that way when the exchange was made.

If God is playing the market, there isn't much we can do about it. Or are you thinking of some other entity that knows the future?

In reality, someone that thinks that something is overvalued (by taking into account their predictions of the future), they sell, and their very act of selling drives the market down. They are helping the market discover the correct price. If they are right, they are rewarded. If they are wrong, they are punished. Same goes for the buyer. If either of them is wrong, they lose their ability to influence the market in the future.

This is, of course, ignoring fraud, coercion, etc.

You have funny ideas about what prices are, and what markets do. You can probably blame your parents and teachers. It is hard for people to grasp that such important mechanisms in our daily lives just emerge without having been planned.

No, no, i DO understand that free markets work very nicely when viewed in isolation as ideal mechanisms.But the real world is far from ideal, so the very first thing you need to get something like a free market is regulations that ensure the ideal part of the idea is not destroyed. A free market basically sets a requirement on the actors to behave in a cartain way that is not natural to them. So it cannot exist without regulations.